GOP critique: Israel and Syria

This is the fourth installment of a series responding to the Romney campaign’s list of ten failures in Obama’s foreign and national security policies.

Failure #5: A Damaged Relationship With Israel And A Moribund Peace Process

No question:  the peace process is moribund and the relationship with Israel damaged.  The question is who is responsible?  Do you blame President Obama, who tried to halt Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank in order to create space for negotiation, or Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who refuses to halt the settlements and shows little sign of being interested in the two-state solution that would be the objective of renewed negotiation?

I’d fault Netanyahu, but there are wrinkles here. Obama’s insistence on a full settlement freeze was a bridge too far.  His insistence on starting negotiations with the 1967 lines as the basis for land swaps was not.  Netanyahu, who made a tremendous stink about this last year, within months dropped his opposition.

That Obama does not like Netanyahu is clear, but the exchange the Republicans cite with French President Sarkozy is ambiguous and unimportant.

As for funding UNESCO, the implication that Obama is planning to violate U.S. law in order to fund the organization even though it admitted Palestine as a member is nonsense.  The Administration has made it clear it may seek a waiver under the law, not violate it.  In any event, UN bodies do not recognize states; only states can recognize states.  Palestine is recognized by over 100 states, which makes it no surprise that it is able to garner the votes to enter international organizations.  The only way to deal with this issue without damaging important U.S. interests is to prevent Palestine from applying for membership (or delaying a vote).  That is what the Administration has been doing, so far successfully.

Far more disturbing though than these relatively small issues is the big one:  Mitt Romney has not pronounced himself in favor of a two-state solution. Nor can he, as he receives ample funding from Sheldon Adelson and other supporters who oppose the two-state solution, want Israel to hold on to the West Bank and support settler efforts to hold onto what they term “Samaria and Judea.”  This is an extremist position guaranteed to lead to strained relations between the United States and all Arab countries.

Failure #6: No Coherent Policy To Stem The Humanitarian And Strategic Disaster In Syria

The Republican claim is this:

President Obama has implemented no coherent policy to shape events in this vital region, wasting over a year and a half as the situation has grown worse and options are being foreclosed. Some 20,000 people have been killed, the region is in turmoil, malign powers and actors have greater influence over the situation than the United States does, and Syria’s stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons are at risk of falling into the wrong hands.

But Romney puts forward no alternative.  His declared approach is virtually identical to Obama’s:

Mitt Romney believes the United States should pursue a strategy of isolating and pressuring the Assad regime to increase the likelihood of a peaceful transition to a legitimate government. We should redouble our push for the U.N. Security Council to live up to its responsibilities and impose sanctions that cut off funding sources that serve to maintain the regime’s grip on power. We should work with Saudi Arabia and Turkey to call on Syria’s military to protect civilians rather than attack them. This effort would aim to drive a wedge between Assad and his military, minimize violence, and increase the possibility that the ruling minority Alawites will be able to reconcile with the majority Sunni population in a post-Assad Syria. And we should make clear that the United States and our allies will support the Syrian opposition when the time comes for them to forge a post-Assad government.

The only real difference with Obama is that Romney fails to mention non-lethal material aid to the Syrian opposition, which the Administration is providing, along with encouraging lethal assistance from Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

The sad fact is that there are no good options out there, but if Romney wants to oppose Obama he should choose one:  arm the opposition, no-fly zone, safe area, provisional Syrian government.  If he is unwilling to do that, but instead states a policy identical to Obama’s, he should admit that he supports the Administration’s approach, ineffectual though it has been.  Citing Democrats critical of the Administration but not supporting their policy prescriptions–or something else distinct from the Administration’s approach–is disingenuous.

I happen to agree with the Republicans that “when America doesn’t lead, instability and danger grow.”  But there is no bipartisan consensus on what to do beyond what is already being done, and Romney knows it.  If he is not suggesting something more than what we are doing already, he should say so.